From NbcNewYork dot com: NYC Starts Charging Rent at Homeless Shelters
City officials this month began charging rent to working families staying in public homeless shelters.
The policy stems from a 1997 state law that hasn’t been enforced until now. Under that law, shelter managers started to require families to pay a portion of their income, depending on the shelter and family size, according to The New York Times. Residents could be expected to pay up to half their earnings.
Some shelter residents, such as Vanessa Dacosta, are not happy about having to pay for their own shelter.
“It’s not right,” Dacosta told the Times. “I pay my baby sitter, I buy diapers, and I’m trying to save money so I can get out of here. I don’t want to be in the shelter forever.”
At least one New Yorker, the city’s commissioner of homeless services, feels that some families aren’t paying their fair share.
“I think it’s hard to argue that families that can contribute to their shelter cost shouldn’t,” Robert Hess, the city’s commissioner of homeless services, told the Times. “I don’t see this playing out in an adverse way. Our objective is not for families to remain in shelter. Our objective is to move families back into their own homes and into the community.”
The good news is that next week president Obama will be conducting town hall meetings. New York’s homeless should get tickets and ask Obama to pay their rent. It appeared to work last time.
God help us!
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
I think we have to look closer at this
mom2oneson (Diary) Sunday, May 10th at 10:05AM EST (link)before we criticize it. I don’t like that article it has a very “the poor are victims” type of feel to it.
Why do you have working families in bold?
I'm
Crippy (Diary) Sunday, May 10th at 10:32AM EST (link)not criticizing the article. I’m sorry if it came across that way.
I think it is a microcosm of the Utopian lie. For years the homeless/poor have been “victimized” by the bigotry of low expectations. Now NYC and its poor are seeing the inevitable conclusion of an economic cycle. There are no free rides and you are going to have to take care of yourself.
Working families are in bold because I can already see the logical work around to paying for their own shelter, stop working.
-Crippy’s World
sorry Crippy :)
mom2oneson (Diary) Sunday, May 10th at 11:32AM EST (link)Thanks for explaining.
When I lived in a shelter there was only one other mother there that didn’t have a working boyfriend or husband with her. Many of the men were criminals basically fleeing another state or some situation. Why these girls were heck bent on taking their kids to follow them I have no idea! They were nice girls too and it made no sense to me.
They didn’t seem to have a cash flow problem *at all!* So they had the man’s pay (usually day labor), food stamps, the shelter fed us too (but it was not enough) WIC for formula, there were free washers and dryers for us to use. If someone worked the shelter did the laundry for them. Some recieved a small TANF payment too. I’m not saying everyone is rolling in the cash but I didn’t see people that the majority of the people were so desperate like the article shows.
It's obscene
red4ever (Diary) Sunday, May 10th at 11:28AM EST (link)First of all that shelter official is an idiot “We are going to make them pay half their monthly iincome to the shelter so that we can get them up and out into their own homes.” Ummm, HOW? If you are making $800 a month as the woman quoted in the article is, and pay $396 to the shelter, where do you save?
I don’t mind making them pay, but make it reasonable to pay, not prohibitive. Paying rent regularly will get them in the habit of having to pay rent/mortgage/whatever. But, every financial adviser says you should pay no more than 33% of your income in housing. Now, these folks are trying to save to get out of the shelter, so you can knock that down to 20-25%. So, that lady will only pay $180-$200 (check my math). Leaves her a chance to save to get her family back on their feet. Which is what everyone wants.
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.
Dante
33% is not realistic for the poor
mom2oneson (Diary) Sunday, May 10th at 11:40AM EST (link)unles they are in gov subsidized housing of some sort. I pay around 70%.
Homeless get to the top of the list for subsidized housing in most places.
What expenses does she have? She probably recieves food stamps. So she has daycare and transportation to pay for. Who knows she might be waiting for an appointment to get daycare assistance. The shelter may help with transportation.
I don’t think kids should be forced into daycare, but I don’t think unreasonable for families to pay rent at a shelter. If she wasn’t working she would recieve a small TANF payment probably. She should also get back the EITC around now if she was working last year. $400 is a lot less than she would pay for an apt without housing assistance. They didn’t just spring these on the families it looks like they gave them warning, which means they have already been there for a while.
correction
mom2oneson (Diary) Sunday, May 10th at 12:32PM EST (link)poor is a broad term, I guess what I mean is those closer to the abject poverty line. There are incomes that are considered below or around the poverty line and they could find housing at 30 or 40%.
article
mom2oneson (Diary) Sunday, May 10th at 11:46AM EST (link)“She got a letter under her door at the shelter a few weeks ago saying she’d have to fork up nearly half of what she was bringing in.”
I suspect that picture is of her, hugging her boyfriend or husband. They have been there for a while if she got the notice a few weeks ago. The article leaves out a lot of information to really give a good assessment of if they can pay something or not.
What this policy does is keep the poor in the poor "house"...
JadedByPolitics (Diary) Sunday, May 10th at 4:42PM EST (link)I say it everyday the Democrats are the party that is about keeping the POOR, POOR and getting the working POOR down to POOR!
Unified Patriots – How-To:
Activists Taking Action
I agree Jaded
pilgrim (Diary) Sunday, May 10th at 6:03PM EST (link)When they promise you goodies, and in return they want you to forfeit your individual liberty to pursue then you are making a very bad deal.
This is obvioulsy a longer term shelter
mom2oneson (Diary) Sunday, May 10th at 8:52PM EST (link)You are right about the dems but I don’t see this like one of those policies.
I think programs that help with deposits are very good vs shelters that provide longer term shelter. Maybe make it a limit like a one in a lifetime only grant for it, there must be a child under 18 in the household or the person be disabled and requirements like that. Make it be a quick turn around time too..lots of scalabitlity in the staff or volunteers to handle lots of applications at once.
Also why is it another’s citizen obligation to make sure young healthy able bodied people have free housing? I think our priority should be more for the mentally ill that can’t function to get HUD or foods stamps and public assistance or vets that are homeless.
RE:
Crippy (Diary) Sunday, May 10th at 8:57PM EST (link)“I think our priority should be more for the mentally ill that can’t function to get HUD or foods stamps and public assistance or vets that are homeless.”
EXACTLY!
God help us!
-Crippy’s World